global warming

[Guest guest]

rep.org/news/ge5_globalwarming.htm

 

Global warming is one of our most critical environmental problems, but

it is surely the most misunderstood. There is a lot of misinformation

out there, and there has also been a disinformation campaign by some

special interests who want to protect their short-term profits by

preventing us from solving the problem. Unfortunately, some

conservative organizations and publications have participated in this

disinformation campaign.

 

There is no justification for this, just as there is nothing

conservative about denying scientific evidence.

 

Global warming is a highly complex issue, so all I can do here is deal

briefly with a few points.

 

 

Myth: There is a huge debate among scientists about whether global

warming is a real problem.

 

False. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find

anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists

is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are

causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of

the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a

handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both " sides "

equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current

state of climate science. The earth's climate is enormously complex,

so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists

occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we

are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The

" debate " about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed

pages of the newspapers.

 

 

Fact: There is a greenhouse effect that warms the earth, and we should

be very glad about it.

 

There are several trace gases in our atmosphere, present in only

minute amounts, that trap heat. The most important ones of concern

here are carbon dioxide and methane. Like the glass panes of a

greenhouse, they let sunlight in to warm the earth but keep some of

the heat from escaping back into space. If they were not there, the

average temperature of the earth would be well below freezing, and

none of us would be living on it.

 

These greenhouse gases have natural sources that produce them, and

natural " sinks " that remove them from the air. These natural processes

have kept the greenhouse gases stable for the past 10,000 years-since

the end of the last ice age. The problem now is that we are producing

these gases much faster than the sinks can remove them. Our carbon

dioxide comes mostly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars,

trucks and factories, and so on, and from burning tropical forests.

Methane comes from agriculture, landfills, leaking natural gas lines,

and coal mines.

 

 

Fact: The earth is getting warmer-both the air at the surface of the

earth and the earth's surface itself-and it is warming much faster

than any natural variation.

 

During the 20th century, the global average temperature of air at the

surface increased by over 1o F., and much of that was due to our

greenhouse gases. Now, this looks like a very small number, but it

really is not. It is a global average and in that context it is very

large. There is " only " a 9o F. difference between the middle of an ice

age-with glaciers covering the northern United States-and our climate

today.

 

 

Myth: Measurements from satellites show that the earth is not warming.

 

False. These satellites do not measure surface air temperature, nor

ground temperature. They measure a column of air centered about 2.5

miles above the earth, and they have only been calculating this

temperature for a few years. They show a very slight warming at that

altitude, although scientists expected more warming, closer to surface

temperatures. There is a lot of effort being devoted now to

understanding why these two trends differ. But the evidence from

satellites does not refute the evidence that the earth and the

atmosphere at the surface are warming.

 

So... there are greenhouse gases, and we are adding them to the

atmosphere much faster than nature can remove them, and the earth is

getting warmer. We can already see some effects of this -glaciers are

vanishing from Glacier National Park-but the really serious

consequences will happen in the future if we continue to produce more

and more of these gases. If we do not change, we are leaving a legacy

of serious trouble for our children and grandchildren.

 

The scientific community's best estimate is that, if we continue with

business as usual, by the year 2100 greenhouse gases will have more

than doubled and the global average temperature will be at least 2.5o

F. higher and possibly much more, and still going up. These

projections are much higher than the ones given just five years ago.

That means that within the lifetime of many of our grandchildren, the

earth will be hotter than it has been in hundreds of thousands of

years. Keep in mind, here, that we are not looking at weather that is

just a few degrees warmer each day. In that respect, " global average

temperature " is pretty misleading. (Just think of what the current

global average includes. It averages everything from the Arctic to the

tropics, from Death Valley in August to Alaska in January.) We are

producing a whole new climatic regime, and many of the consequences

will take the form of extreme events.

 

What will the consequences be? Obviously, here we are in the realm of

estimates and projections. We cannot know for sure, until it is too

late, but some consequences are nearly certain and others are likely.

There are also some risks that we cannot now predict how probable they

are. But here are some realistic things to expect:

 

 

Sea levels will rise, because water expands as it gets warmer.

As a result, we should expect coastal flooding, especially in states

like Florida and Louisiana. Storm surges will affect people farther

inland than they do now. Highly-productive estuaries will be

destroyed, if they cannot move inland because human development blocks

them. Aquifers from which coastal cities get their water may become

contaminated with salt water.

 

 

Ecosystems will be disrupted. Our climate zones will shift to the

north as the earth warms, but this will happen far faster than

ecosystems can migrate or adapt. Forests, for example, will be

stressed, because the trees will soon be out of their climatic

zones & Mac226; and stressed forests are highly susceptible to fires and

disease. Expect serious loss of our forests. And as climate zones

shift, more species will become endangered and extinct. The more you

think about it, the more you will see just how great the potential is

for environmental disaster. The natural areas we enjoy face

devastation.

 

 

Precipitation will change. In a warmer climate, more of our rain will

come from stronger storms, producing increased flooding. This is, in

fact, already happening. Storm tracks will probably shift to the

north, so some areas will suffer from increased droughts. There is

evidence that a warmer climate is already producing stronger El Nino

weather patterns, which cause widespread disasters. And there is

evidence that a warmer climate will produce stronger hurricanes.

 

 

Health problems will increase. A warmer climate on average means more

deadly summer heat waves. This is already happening in the U.S.,

killing more people. And tropical diseases will be able to spread

farther north into the U.S. This, also, is already happening.

 

 

Food supplies will diminish. The studies generally conclude that in

rich countries farmers will be able to adapt, but that the food supply

in poor countries may be seriously harmed, possibly producing millions

of environmental refugees.

 

There are also risks of unknown probability, such as a shut-down of

the oceanic circulation system that would devastate both land and

marine ecosystems, and the collapse of ice sheets in Antarctica that

would raise sea levels drastically.

 

Clearly, we have a problem here. We also clearly have an obligation to

take the lead in solving it. The U.S. has less than 5% of the world's

population, but we produce one-fourth of all greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

Myth: Solving global warming will devastate our economy.

 

Nonsense, utter nonsense. The " studies " that produce that conclusion

only get those results by starting with the assumption that it will be

enormously expensive because there are no substitutes for fossil fuels

and there is no way to become more efficient. As Amory and Hunter

Lovins say, that is an assumption masquerading as a fact, and it is

" flatly contradicted by experience. " Like the old saying about

computers: " garbage in, garbage out. "

 

We can solve global warming without damaging our economy. Over 2,500

economists in the U.S., including eight Nobel Prize winners, signed a

statement that concludes: " There are many potential policies to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions for which total benefits outweigh the total

costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis

shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change

without harming American living standards, and these measures may in

fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run. " When was the last

time 2,500 economists agreed about anything? In fact, we can reduce

greenhouse gases in countless ways that will save money, leaving us

better off than we are now.

 

 

 

There are four keys to reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

 

 

Quit destroying forests, especially tropical forests.

 

We need to help those countries increase agricultural productivity

without having to clear more land.

 

 

 

Increase the sinks for greenhouse gases.

 

One obvious possibility: plant trees. They take up carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere and give us all sorts of added benefits as well. We

could begin a major replanting program on our national forests, which

have been devastated by years of subsidized clearcutting. But planting

trees is even more effective in towns and cities, because the trees

also shade buildings and reduce energy demand for air conditioning and

heating. Methane from agriculture can be reduced, and it can be

profitably captured from landfills and mines and then burned to

generate electricity.

 

 

 

Increase energy efficiency.

 

This does not mean we have to freeze in the dark. It means getting the

energy services we want-heat and light and power-from burning less

fossil fuel. As Paul Hawken and the Lovins say, " Climate change is not

an inevitable result of normal economic activity but an artifact of

carrying out that activity in irrationally inefficient ways. Climate

protection can save us all money. "

 

Some 40% of U.S. greenhouse gases come from electricity-generating

plants. We are so wasteful in our use of electrical energy that there

are endless opportunities to replace inefficient lights and equipment

and appliances and save money by burning less fuel. Replacing a

75-watt light bulb with an 18-watt compact fluorescent bulb, for

example, gives you better light and uses so much less electricity that

you save over $35 in the end-and it reduces carbon dioxide emissions

by 1,600 pounds. Over half of all electricity is used to run motors in

businesses and industries. Retrofit of proper controls pays for itself

in a year or two and could cut the total electricity used in the whole

world by one-fourth. The opportunities are so great that Amory Lovins

calculates that the U.S. could run our entire economy on about

one-fourth of the current electricity used, saving us billions of

dollars every year.

 

Transportation is responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse

gases, and this is another area where we are enormously wasteful. All

of us who drive contribute to global warming. Every gallon of gasoline

we burn puts 20 lbs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so yes, gas

guzzlers will have to go. (In the not-too-distant future, our vehicles

will probably be powered by fuel cells, which do not emit greenhouse

gases.)

 

Overall, Amory Lovins calculates that it is so much cheaper to save

fuel than to burn it, that the U.S. could cut greenhouse gas emissions

drastically and save $300 billion per year. And there are many

additional ways to cut greenhouse gases at low cost.

 

 

 

Expand renewable sources of energy-wind, solar, biomass, fuel cells-to

replace fossil fuels.

 

Here we need more research and development, but both Congress and the

energy industry are so myopic that they invest very little in

renewables research. A little more money here would go a long way. And

just because we still have cheap fossil fuels around is no reason to

delay switching to renewable sources of energy. As the head of Shell

Hydrogen says, the Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of

stones, and the Oil Age will not end because we run out of oil. In

fact, the only reason renewables are not competitive on the market

right now is because people and industries who burn fossil fuels do

not have to pay for the damages caused by the air pollution they emit.

Switching to renewable energy sources solves the damages from air

pollution on top of protecting the climate.

 

 

So, there are many sensible things we can do to solve global warming.

And they do not require government control of our lives. They do

require government policy and leadership. There are numerous market

barriers that keep our economy from becoming more energy efficient;

governmental policy and leadership can help remove them. In many

cases, this will involve no more than providing information and

expertise: showing people and companies how to be more efficient -such

as the EPA's " Green Lights " program, which shows businesses how to

save electricity and money in lighting commercial buildings. In some

cases, it may mean getting prices right, e.g., making polluters pay

for the damages they cause-as free-market theory says they

should-which will also make renewables competitive.

 

As Amory and Hunter Lovins say, reducing greenhouse gases is not about

command and control. " It's about helping markets to work properly-and

then letting them do their job.... Innovative, market-oriented public

policies, especially at a state and local level, can focus chiefly on

barrier-busting to help markets work properly and reward the

economically efficient use of fuel. This require much less

intervention in the market than we now have with regulatory rules and

standards. "

 

 

Fact: Global warming is not a liberal conspiracy to expand the power

of government, nor is it a theat to our prosperity. It is a very real

and compelling problem that we must face and solve.

 

An important conservative principle is that society is

intergenerational, so we have obligations to be good stewards of the

earth for future generations. Consequently, we have an obligation to

take the lead in dealing with threats to the climate. Besides, as the

Lovins ask, " if the 'cost' of protecting climate ranges from strongly

negative to roughly zero or irrelevant, what are we waiting for? "